Philip Kirkorov, a renowned People’s Artist of Russia, faces potential removal from the New Year’s special “New Year’s Light” on NTV following his appearance at a party hosted by Ivleeva. This development surfaced via a Telegram outlet known as Baza, which cited an unnamed source about the decision’s momentum.
According to the source, NTV executives were said to push for an alternate version of the program, specifically a version of the well-known show “Mask” that would proceed without Kirkorov due to the controversial incident in question. The aim, it is claimed, was to preserve the broadcast schedule while sidestepping further attention linked to the scandal.
An insider noted that the situational re-editing demanded by the channel had already affected the show’s quality. The replacement for Kirkorov reportedly would not have enough time to shoot new material, and the decision to exclude him was described as having been made earlier in the process. There is a sense of regret over the complications this created for the production team, with the party’s involvement cited as a contributing factor to the disruption.
Separately, Ivleeva—an influential blogger—organized a party titled “Almost Naked” on December 20 at the Mutabor club. The event’s dress code required attendees to come in minimal attire, which drew public criticism for its explicit theme. Among the attendees were Ksenia Sobchak, Olga Orlova, Philip Kirkorov, the artist known as Glucose, Lolita Milyavskaya, Oksana Samoilova, Vacio, and Dzhigan. Critics accused Ivleeva of pushing an overly provocative concept for a public figure’s event, intensifying the media spotlight on the host. In late December, Moscow’s Khamovnichesky Court reportedly considered a legal case involving a substantial monetary claim related to the party, indicating the controversy extended into the legal arena as well.
Vacio later commented on the outcome and ongoing discussion surrounding the scandal, addressing the debate about the event’s reception and the broader implications for those connected to Ivleeva’s circle. Observers note how the incident exemplifies the friction between celebrity culture, public taste, and the responsibilities that come with hosting high-profile gatherings in the social media era. The situation also underscores how production decisions on television can be influenced by off-screen events, sometimes leading to altered scripts, edited broadcasts, or even selective participation by performers who become lightning rods for controversy.
In the broader media landscape, industry insiders and fans alike watch to see how quickly networks adapt to reputational risk when a cherished performer becomes embroiled in a public dispute. The stakes extend beyond a single broadcast; they shape branding, audience expectations, and the willingness of networks to feature polarizing personalities. The case underlines the volatility of contemporary show business, where celebrity actions and media narratives intertwine with scheduling needs, editorial discretion, and legal considerations. Whether Kirkorov will appear in future segments remains a topic of discussion among viewers, commentators, and industry professionals who continue to assess the long-term impact on the network’s programming strategy and the star’s public image.
Meanwhile, the ripples from Ivleeva’s December event continue to prompt discussion about event planning, media responsibility, and the boundaries of celebrity involvement in provocative entertainment. The interplay between online discourse, court proceedings, and television planning demonstrates how a single gathering can echo through multiple facets of the entertainment ecosystem, influencing programming choices, sponsorships, and audience engagement strategies across major networks in the region.